EDU800 – Week Five

This week I read four articles for EDU800. The first, Measuring cognitive and metacognitive regulatory processes used during hypermedia learning: Issues and challenges, was written by Azevedo, Moos, Witherspoon, & Chauncey (2010). The second, A design framework for educational hypermedia systems: Theory, research, and learning emerging scientific conceptual perspectives, was written by Jacobsen (2008). The third, by Kuiper, Volman, & Terwel (2005) was entitled The Web as an information resource in K-12 education: Strategies for supporting students in searching and processing information. The fourth, by Shapiro & Niederhauser (2004), is entitled Learning from hypertext: Research issues and findings. I will here discuss two of them.

First, by Shapiro & Niederhauser (2004), the authors describe hypertext as nonlinear, having flexibility of information access, learner-controlled in hypertext assisted learning (HAL), and having more metacognitive demands than HAL. When user-behavior with the construction integration model (CIM) and cognitive flexibility theory (CFT) was studies, a well-defined structure with limited information given reflected positively on low prior knowledge. An ill-defined structure with lots of information given reflected positively on simple, factual knowledge for CIM and CFT. Problems with HAL were that theoretically, it’s too new to be studied well. Methodologically, there are conceptual and language issues available to explain the problems as there are with size of the hypertext. A standard is needed before true discussion can begin (as of 2004). Still no good mode of discourse/language to discuss the Web and all it contains, conceptually or theoretically. A standard is still needed. The modern web is an ill-structured system; there are tons of information out there that is simple and factual. The potential for “disorientation” and the “keyhole effect” are greater on the Web because there are so many links available, one is not sure where to go so one goes everywhere. The role of prior knowledge changes when considering traditional text (there’s less room to get lost), hypertext (some rabbit holes), and the open modern Web (the most broad category by far). 

Next, by Azevedo, Moos, Johnson, & Chauncey (2011), the authors explore self-regulated learning (SRL) and their effect on think-alouds for young students. I believe the think-aloud data measures SRL fairly well but it could be better. Specifically, with journaling or a reader’s log written in every ten minutes. As far as drawbacks to think-alouds, some learning gets missed or never used, like when students don’t immediately excel in it. Or, if students have never been taught to make a graph, for example, the student couldn’t know to make one. Things get missed in this model. Regarding the table and visuals, I quite honestly found them confusing except for the think-aloud reading example. The graph on page 217 was particularly confusing as I could not tell which shape was which on the graph. I would have appreciated graphs by student individually, or charts, taken over time to represent what was going on in their learning.

References

Azevedo, R., Moos, D., Witherspoon, A., & Chauncey, A. (2010). Measuring cognitive and metacognitive regulatory processes used during hypermedia learning: Issues and challenges. Educational Psychologist, 45, 210-22.

Jacobsen, M. J., (2008). A design framework for educational hypermedia systems: theory, research, and learning emerging scientific conceptual perspectives. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 5-28. 

Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2005). The Web as an information resource in K–12 education: Strategies for supporting students in searching and processing information. Review of Educational Research, 75, 285–328.

Shapiro, A., & Niederhauser, D. (2004). Learning from hypertext: Research issues and findings. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 605-620). New York: Macmillan.